Jill Stein in The Chicago Tribune

On Government Reform: We need ranked-choice voting in presidential elections

Some say the two-party system is too entrenched, and you can't play unless you're a Democrat or a Republican. Indeed, our first-past-the-post election system allows both parties to scare voters into line: Vote for the lesser evil, or else!

Yet we could break free from this trap with a simple reform called ranked-choice voting. Ranked-choice voting allows voters to rank candidates. If no candidate gets more than 50% of the first-choice votes, second-choice votes are factored in and so on. The system removes the fear that a vote for a favorite candidate could inadvertently help a least-favorite candidate. Ranked-choice voting is used in a growing number of American cities and is used on the statewide ballot in Maine.

But despite all their dire warnings about splitting the vote, the Democrats and Republicans have resisted ranked-choice voting and other reforms that would expand voter choice. It's time to stop settling for the downward spiral of voting for the lesser evil.

Source: Stein OpEd, Chicago Tribune: Third 2016 Presidential Debate Oct 20, 2016

On Principles & Values: Greens overcame ballot laws designed by Democrats and GOP

A voter revolt is brewing in America. People are fed up, and they should be. The super rich are destroying our economy, sending our jobs overseas and making our planet uninhabitable. But instead of offering real solutions, the two-party system has produced the two most disliked and distrusted candidates in history. An incredible 57% of Americans polled recently by Gallup say the Democratic and Republican parties have failed and we need a new major party. In short, the American people are ready for real competition to the two-party system.

But while the two-party system may be deeply unpopular, it's also deeply entrenched. Greens and Libertarians have both spent tremendous resources to overcome laws designed by Democrats and Republicans to keep competition off the ballot. Yet despite this milestone, the mainstream media have given us less than 1% of the coverage they've given Trump & Clinton. Of the relatively tiny amount of coverage we get, most is either openly hostile or subtly negative

Source: Stein OpEd, Chicago Tribune: Third 2016 Presidential Debate Oct 20, 2016

On Principles & Values: Majority of Americans want a four-party debate

The two-party establishment's strongest line of defense is the presidential debates, controlled by a private corporation run by Democratic and Republican party elites. A landslide 76% of Americans wanted a four-party debate, according to a September USA Today poll. Yet the Commission on Presidential Debates insists that candidates can only participate if they're polling 15% nationally--a near impossible task when your media coverage is 1% of that of the establishment parties. Supposedly this is to keep out "non-viable" candidates. It certainly does help prevent other parties from becoming viable in the eyes of the public.

What would our history look like if another challenger to the two-party system, Abraham Lincoln, had been locked out of debates by the dominant parties of his time, the Democrats and the Whigs? The Republican Party was an upstart in a time of discontent. Today our country is once again mired in discontent.

Source: Stein OpEd, Chicago Tribune: Third 2016 Presidential Debate Oct 20, 2016

The above quotations are from Media coverage of IL political races in The Chicago Tribune. Click here for other excerpts from Media coverage of IL political races in The Chicago Tribune. Click here for other excerpts by Jill Stein. Click here for a profile of Jill Stein.
Please consider a donation to OnTheIssues.org! Click for details -- or send donations to: 1770 Mass Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140 E-mail: submit@OnTheIssues.org (We rely on your support!)

Page last updated: Sep 18, 2022